manly man posts a pic of his beard and him holding a freshly caught seabass.
Nothing. No response maybe a "like" from his aunt.

Argument: Women dont care about looks, just get a confident personality, be happy, successful and charming, women will come to you.

Fact. That is the same argument people say to unnattractive fat chicks. They say "Just learn to seduce, get charming, positive, and a good personality, and men will come to you." It is an argument people say when someone is inherently unnattractive.

Argument: Be rich, get money, women will come to you.

Fact. While this is true, what does it mean? In terms of ethics it seems like a bad way to form a society, since the majority of a society are usually poor, that means the majority of society is treated negatively and given no love. Now, the other thing it means, logically speaking, is that men are inherently worthless, because dating them is a job, that someone has to be paid to do.

Fact. Men are denied to wear makeup, or sexy clothes, made to be as drab and ugly as humanly possible.

Argument: Women want a real man, not a sissy wearin' makeup.

Fact. Women are attracted to certain alpha males, who are perfect specimens. However, most males do not live up to this standard, and must compensate in other ways. One of these easiest ways to hide imperfections, is makeup.

Fact. Why do bars exist? Why do prostitutes exist? Because women have to be under the influence of drugs, or paid, to have sex with men. And yet society nods its stupid head and thinks this is the perfect plan. And keeps spreading toxic masculine attitudes and shaming men who disobey gender norms, meanwhile wonders while life is a shitshow and wars happen.

This is my ted talk.
I plan on making more ted talks in the future, in order to save society.

Fact. Why do bars exist? Why do prostitutes exist? Because women have to be under the influence of drugs, or paid, to have sex with men.

Click to expand...

It's hard to explain quite how wrong you are, but, meanwhile, remember this: If a woman sees no prospect of enjoying herself in a sexual encounter, then she is less likely to be interested in it. The first and foremost point is that incels need to get personalities worth knowing.

And yet society nods its stupid head and thinks this is the perfect plan. And keeps spreading toxic masculine attitudes and shaming men who disobey gender norms, meanwhile wonders while life is a shitshow and wars happen.

Click to expand...

No, not really. Over the years, it's been quite a transformation. I can remember when public discourse ran into a weird cycle about women, men, and masculine violence: Certain advice was given from traditional quarters, feminists rejected it, and feminism was roundly blamed for giving the advice in the first place. Point being, once upon a time, men ostensibly resented the prospect of being viewed as inherently violent. Still, though, there was one time when those masculinist voices would be silent, and that was in defense of sexually harassing and sexually violent behavior; under ordinary circumstances most men resent being considered rape machines, but the great phrasing here at Sciforums was about not blaming the grenade for exploding if you pull the pin. You know: How dare that harlot wear high heels to work as the dress code requires! Doesn't she know that doing her job unfairly tempts men? And, yeah, you would think men would resent that. But when a guy said you can't blame the grenade for exploding if you pull the pin, the tumbleweed silence from the most vocal defenders of masculinity still echoes today, over a decade later, if we listen real close.

Because we've actually come around to the point where the manly thing to do is embrace the fact of that violence and blame women for everything. We're back to Troy VII; it's been about a girl the whole time, and even the Capital Gazette shooting last week was, at heart, about a girl.

Y'know, there was this bit in a newspaper a few weeks back, in which a famous masculinist did the whole bit about blaming women for what's wrong with the world men made, and he came around to the idea of "enforced monogamy", which, I mean, come on—er ...oh, right. We did that bit↗ a few days back. But you skipped over that part, so, yeah the bit about John Candy and Jim Belushi undressed in a locker room while talking about sex toys has to do with the idea that back then it was every man's god-given right to complain about his wife, and the problem with enforced monogamy is that if it isn't rape culture par extraordinaire, then it's just another trip 'round the circle with a bunch of married men complaining that their wives don't put out enough and aren't good enough in bed, besides, and let's face it, nothing about enforced monogamy means those men wouldn't try to cheat.

And, in the end, when you say, "society nods its stupid head and thinks this is the perfect plan", you are, in fact, grievously wrong; you are, just as masculinism is known to do, erasing voices who disagree with something you want. Society? No, it's not society at large; it's mostly a significant number of men. Remember the snowflakes and feminists and white knights? A woman need not be a bra-burning stereotype of a feminist in order to look forward to the day men do away with that stupid, dangerous, penis-envy masculinity.
____________________Notes:

Collier, Amy. "I Am a Tinder Guy Holding a Fish and I Will Provide for You". The New Yorker. 1 May 2017. NewYorker.com. 2 July 2018. http://bit.ly/2sqny8A

GuestGuest Advertisement

as used in political dog whistle politics...
it appears the word has become the alternate word for calling _igger at democrats.
lefty liberal bleeding hearts etc...
clearly stating that shwing compasion and rallying to support human rights and equal rights is wrong and evil.
the alt-right managed to conjur a word that swapped calling a man a women and an african american useless and lazy into 1 word that is applied to all centre left liberal democrats.

which i think is highly problematic for what it is normalising as US culture.

overt dogma about mating couples being formed as a normative value of human need seems a little OTT for modern society.

overt dogma about physical communal atributes of comparative desirability seem to be prevailent in most cultures.
is that genetics ?
are people genetically programed to like certain physical atributes ?
does breeding go on in spite of that outside that model ?

you see... if you spend all your intellectual time rolling around in the shallow mud of others superficial wants which are all mixed up with baggage and their emotional issues and dramas, then your never going to get to the bottom of the basic question which has been posed.
your just going to end up trolling yourself through tabloid magazine style personality and physical atributes that are specifically self massing based on the un-obtainable aspect of being imperfect to a sense of "other" that is the self chasing its self in another self.

but hey ... as long as the free world is still partially free people can almost kinda be free to have sex with whom ever they like.

I don't think most makeup wearing emo guys are attracting a lot of women. They are probably attracting whatever type of person that they are interested in though.

Click to expand...

I routinely see it everyday. Emo guys in girly makeup, getting 30 girls obsessed with him. Or transsexuals getting a bunch of women interested in them. I even see lesbian transsexuals making out with cis girls at the bar. All to do with being hot of course, you can't just put on a dress and expect women to like you. Society is very shallow and judges mainly on looks, but pretends it is this glorious land of compassion and empathy. Ironically it is often hot girls who reject men and claim that men only lust for them, meanwhile these same hot girls only date people nearly as hot as they are. It is a kind of defense mechanism to deflect guilt. It is actually proven that good looking people get lesser criminal sentencing by judges.

For a guy, confidence, being happy and successful (financially) works pretty well to attract women.

For a woman, that doesn't work so well if they aren't also good looking. Women want security (money) and guys want looks.

If a guy isn't good looking, you can't cover that up with makeup. Regarding the sea bass and beard, that might be attractive to some women but money is attractive to all women.

Click to expand...

You are missing my point altogether. My point is that women want all the things except the man himself.

Imagine a society of fat ugly girls. Would men be eager to date them? Or would these fat ugly girls struggle to get attention. And they would seek life coaches. What would the life coaches tell these girls? They would tell them to work on their personality, that personality is the only thing that matters, (which applies to them, since it is the only thing they can easily change.) The would say, to snag a man, be rich, have a good personality, learn to seduce, men will love you for sure.
But these men would be just bought men, you understand?
They would not love them, it is a job to them. That they expect financial compensation for, you understand? So for women...so as soon as he loses his money she dumps, because it was never about him in the first place.
Here is an example to make it clear.
If gender roles were reversed, and men had sex with women...but demanded women pay men to have sex with them...would that make any sense? No it only makes no sense, it is non-sense, unless you take into consideration the fact that women are not actually attracted to most men, and its a chore, a job for them.

For example if I said to a man, here is a hot woman. She is average income, she pays for her own food, she won't cost you a penny, she will help with the bills, but she is not rich by any means. And the man says "No she must be rich." It is clear to me the man is a homosexual, or has so many rich women to choose from at the ready. It is clear he is not in love, or attracted to the girl in any real sense.
So, begin to see what is before your eyes.

And yes makeup can hide ugliness but it is no guarantee, doesn't work for everyone.

In any case your views have been disproven by a redpiller. He made a profile image of a universally attractive male, put his income as 0 dollars or broke, and called himself a terrible and shy person, and women were practically on their knees begging for sex. He repeated this experiment several different times, all with the same result.

It's hard to explain quite how wrong you are, but, meanwhile, remember this: If a woman sees no prospect of enjoying herself in a sexual encounter, then she is less likely to be interested in it.

Click to expand...

Yes and this is what I am saying, generally women do not see a prospect of enjoying herself during a sexual encounter. This is why women play hard to get, also why bars exist and are so profitable, because women are generally not sexually attracted to men unless they are under the influence of mind altering chemicals.

The first and foremost point is that incels need to get personalities worth knowing.

Click to expand...

That is a bit of a point based in ignorance. There are probably many incels who have deep and interesting personalities, but are not given the time of day by women because they come off as too abnormal or socially awkward.

How dare that harlot wear high heels to work as the dress code requires! Doesn't she know that doing her job unfairly tempts men?

Click to expand...

Illogic exists in all corners of the globe. The main point to drive here is that men are not a single conglomerate entity, they are a not a "thing" there is no one man who speaks as a dictator for other men. Each man has his own mind, his own identity, and often competes with other men. For instance, some men might be bothered and become uncontrollably horny and distracted by a dress code that forces women to dress in a sexual manner of high heels. But such a man is denied power from other men, such as his male boss, who forces the high heels of women onto him. So yes in essence, the logical man should direct his resentment towards other men, who are also responsible for his torment. But in the same token, the logical man has a deep jealousy of the female sexual power, and that he was cursed into a role of impotence.

Because we've actually come around to the point where the manly thing to do is embrace the fact of that violence and blame women for everything. We're back to Troy VII; it's been about a girl the whole time, and even the Capital Gazette shooting last week was, at heart, about a girl.
And, in the end, when you say, "society nods its stupid head and thinks this is the perfect plan", you are, in fact, grievously wrong; you are, just as masculinism is known to do, erasing voices who disagree with something you want. Society? No, it's not society at large; it's mostly a significant number of men. Remember the snowflakes and feminists and white knights? A woman need not be a bra-burning stereotype of a feminist in order to look forward to the day men do away with that stupid, dangerous, penis-envy masculinity.

Click to expand...

At the end of the day, both genders are to blame for this monstrocity. This is because, women often tend to perpetuate the same toxic norms of society, such as that poor men are worthless, men must be rich to be loved, and all other sorts of toxic masculine ideals, such as women who say men without a very large penis ought to be shamed and cucked and are unworthy of a woman. This kind of ideology completely discounts a man's sense of self-worth and identity, and in terms of evolution, completely ignores any positive personality trait a man has, completely reducing him to nothing more than a walking penis. At the same time, rejection seems like an unfair process, to the man who is a victim of it, causing him to feel deep seated resentment over his own worthlessness, if he is to suffer then so should the world be dragged down with him, this is perhaps amplified when the women in question rejects him for someone who he percieves as a man without virtue, someone more worthless than himself, in which he feels he has gotten the bad end of an unfair deal and that was given no empathy or consideration about looking beyond the superficial, and seeing the true person within.

as used in political dog whistle politics...
it appears the word has become the alternate word for calling _igger at democrats.
lefty liberal bleeding hearts etc...
clearly stating that shwing compasion and rallying to support human rights and equal rights is wrong and evil.
the alt-right managed to conjur a word that swapped calling a man a women and an african american useless and lazy into 1 word that is applied to all centre left liberal democrats.

which i think is highly problematic for what it is normalising as US culture.

Click to expand...

That is the root of Nazi idealogy. Hitler said that if there were no jews, the jews would have to be invented. That hatred gives one focus and purpose.
The Nazi idealogy was at its very root, an inhuman idealogy, anti-human. For someone to debate nazi morals would be an oxymoron, the Nazi idealogy is a rejection of humanistic morality, the whole point was to be inhuman.

Sigmund Freud's theories state that brain is ruled by three components, the ID, the EGO, and The SUPEREGO.
The superego, represents Jewish idealogy, humanism, a world religion, unity, excessive feminization, soap commericals.
The id, is represented by Nazi idealogy.
They are fundamental, polar opposites. Both idealogies can be said to be deeply flawed in their own way.

Frued stated that the EGO is what bridges the ID's violent desires with the cold rules of society.
The ego tries to map what is the best solution to satiate both the the id and superego.
Today, we see this represented with porn, and videogames.
Porn, an avenue of instant relief, without all the hardship of navigating the social labyrinth of the superego.
Videogames, a place to slaughter thousands, without feeling the slightest guilt.

One: Trading makeup tips is actually interesting conversation if you happen to be into wearing makeup. When it comes to little sticks with weird fuzz on them, it's true a woman is more likely to want to discuss a mascara applicator with a stranger than his dick.

Or transsexuals getting a bunch of women interested in them.

Click to expand...

Two: At least the transsexual has something to talk about.

I even see lesbian transsexuals making out with cis girls at the bar.

Click to expand...

Three: Sounds like a fun bar.

All to do with being hot of course, you can't just put on a dress and expect women to like you.

Click to expand...

Four: While it is true that you can't just throw on a dress and expect women to like you, personality and conduct go a long, long way.

Society is very shallow and judges mainly on looks, but pretends it is this glorious land of compassion and empathy.

Click to expand...

Five: That's the world men built. If you watch closely, you'll see that part over and over again. Try this one: I'm forty-five, was born under Nixon, and while that might seem a long, long time ago, the more important point is that I am middle aged and when I was born, (A) "marry well" was not only an available career path for women, but expected for many of them; (B) marrying a woman meant he was allowed to force her to have sex, and (C) in some parts of the U.S., women were still not allowed to own property without a man's permission and supervision. Here we are in the twenty-first century, and men old enough to have defended marrying well as a woman's place now complain of golddiggers, many are still really pissed off about marital rape, and we might let women own property but there are a bunch of people who still think she needs a man's permission to receive medical treatment. These are the United States of America that men built.

Ironically it is often hot girls who reject men and claim that men only lust for them, meanwhile these same hot girls only date people nearly as hot as they are.

Click to expand...

Six: Think of it this way, according to what you describe, the hot girl would seem to not have any converstations that weren't about some man trying to snake into her snatch; in such circumstances, there is a reason she must neceessarily reject some men.

Six-A: Consider what makes a man hot.

It is a kind of defense mechanism to deflect guilt. It is actually proven that good looking people get lesser criminal sentencing by judges.

Click to expand...

Seven: Other people's behavior is what it is, but in this case I would ask you to pay careful attention to your own words: A "defense mechanism"? When you work through the darwinian implications of the phrase, all you're really doing is asserting the validity of hotness—an observably subjective standard—as an evolutionary outcome, and justifying the snotty exclusion and societal standards you denounce. That is to say, you are burying yourself with that phrase.

My point is that women want all the things except the man himself.

Click to expand...

Eight: This easily comes back to wondering what's wrong with men, or, within that framework, a particular given man. And as long as we're in a dualistic man-woman orbit, we can only remind this is the world men made, so if she's making market decisions based on projections, should we complain that she is capable of recognizing benefits and risks? It's easy enough to want the security, material and psychological, that comes with such relationships, but stacking those benefits against obvious risks like rape and domestic violence can easily seem overstated from the outside; truth of the matter is that if we reduce it to benefit analyses, and presume basic material and psychological comfort of companionship, as well as against the most obvious of violence, there is still the simple, mundane prospect of spending the rest of one's life with another person. Absolute parity in other aspects is not required, but what it comes down to is that how a man smells, looks in general, and appears when he carries himself will make all the difference in the world. To wit, all else being equal, the prospect of spending every day listening to a man talk like you post just isn't going to bring women to swoon after you. Indeed, at this point, you're essentially dooming yourself by presenting a specifically unpalatable prospect.

Imagine a society of fat ugly girls. Would men be eager to date them?

Click to expand...

Nine: As long as dating fails to absolutely rule out sexual contact, yes.

They would not love them, it is a job to them. That they expect financial compensation for, you understand? So for women...so as soon as he loses his money she dumps, because it was never about him in the first place.

Click to expand...

Ten: It wasn't so long ago I could hear men complaining about the emasculation of being in relationships with women who made more money than they do. It was easy enough to sympathize because changing times brought different realities, and some part of what we have this small handful of years later is a festering masculine resentment of women that is based, in part, on the idea that she should not be a breadwinner.

If gender roles were reversed, and men had sex with women...but demanded women pay men to have sex with them...would that make any sense?

Click to expand...

Eleven: I only ask because you make it relevant—Do you actually know how men and women have sex with one another?

Let's try this other role reversal: Okay, she's the man, you're the woman; have sex.

It's not quite funny; several months ago I found myself in a weird discussion with a couple of trendy mgtow poseurs who couldn't quite figure out the difference, either. And that actually puts me in mind of this chap I remember, from overseas, who, when actually pointed to the difference, still couldn't grasp the concept.

But, yes, there is a point at which women paying men to have sex makes perfect sense; the part involving women who meet your specific standards raises a technical problem in finding enough men who are capable of fucking that way.

Generally speaking, though, you need to be able to discern basic differences.

For example if I said to a man, here is a hot woman. She is average income, she pays for her own food, she won't cost you a penny, she will help with the bills, but she is not rich by any means.

Click to expand...

Twelve: You just made a very important point. A woman "won't cost you a penny"?

Take the note: Women aren't the problem, here.

And the man says "No she must be rich." It is clear to me the man is a homosexual, or has so many rich women to choose from at the ready.

Click to expand...

Thirteen: (¡chortlechuckleguffaw!)

Reminder: Women aren't the problem here. Seriously, take the note.

It is clear to me the man is a homosexual, or has so many rich women to choose from at the ready.

Click to expand...

Fourteen: No, really. Women aren't the problem, here.

It is clear he is not in love, or attracted to the girl in any real sense.

Click to expand...

Fifteen: It is easy enough to say you don't understand women, but it is also clear you don't really understand men, either.

Try it this way: It can be tricky, because a lot of it just has to do with people. There are times when differences like men and women can be very important, but at some point it doesn't seem so much to expect that a difference be of genuine importance. You're not wrong that "he is not in love", but classism itself is a human thing and a man need not be gay to not fall in love with a woman you think is hot.

So, begin to see what is before your eyes.

Click to expand...

Sixteen: Oh, well, yes, some things we cannot fail to notice when it is put right before us as such.

And yes makeup can hide ugliness but it is no guarantee, doesn't work for everyone.

Click to expand...

Seventeen: This is why. No, really, it's like, "Huh?" except nobody really wants to know what you think you mean.

In any case your views have been disproven by a redpiller ....

Click to expand...

Eighteen: Because redpilling is scientific.

Yes and this is what I am saying, generally women do not see a prospect of enjoying herself during a sexual encounter.

Click to expand...

Nineteen: One part of a solution would be for men to learn some manner of useful intimacy. If having sex with men wasn't so demonstrably inherently dangerous, then maybe things would be different. And, again, it's really, really important to be able to discern certain differences.

That is a bit of a point based in ignorance. There are probably many incels who have deep and interesting personalities, but are not given the time of day by women because they come off as too abnormal or socially awkward.

Click to expand...

Twenty: Once again, this is why.

You make a certain point: I should say, identifying incels need to get personalities worth knowing. You're aware the word was coined by a woman, right? Describing herself? She's appalled by what it's become. And that's the thing; most incels proper wouldn't use the word. Try relying on deep and interesting personality, instead; see point eight above.

But in the same token, the logical man has a deep jealousy of the female sexual power, and that he was cursed into a role of impotence.

Click to expand...

Twenty-one: Again, listening to a man talk like you post just isn't going to attract the women who meet your standards.

At the end of the day, both genders are to blame for this monstrocity.

The moral horror screamed from the rooftops of "hide your children" when 2 men make-out at a bar is a sure sign your not in kansas any more Dorothy.

Click to expand...

You might have that backwards.

Or I'm reading you wrong.

Then again, I'm waiting for the HUD Secretary↱, and also a preacher who happens to be the father of the White House Press Secretary, to put on a dresses in order to sneak into a women's restroom and rub 'em out while some woman pinches a loaf in the next stall, not because I ever actually wish to witness this grotesquerie, but, rather, to show us what they're talking about.

Moral horror, hiding children, and American family-value traditionalism can sometimes disorient up and down, eggplant and Wednesday, and so on. Kansas? Isn't that a bizarro multiplier, which in turn is some manner of highly specialized imaginary fraction only used in counting whale lice brooding in a polar bear's lower colon during a cicada summer near the Decorah crater?

'Round my area, though, we do have a bar, somewhere, that you can dress up and play Toto, though Dorothy's packin' some kind of manly heat under her dress. I will say, though, over the years, gay bars have converted their back rooms, and these days if you don't make out at the one bar, it's no longer about the cops maybe raiding the joint for being gay, but more about having some decency in public; we're no longer underground, so every once in a while we need to behave like we exist in daylight. There are some more exclusive dance clubs, though, where the pretense, at least, is something other than a sex bar. We call them meat markets, pickup bars, singles clubs, rave houses, &c.; organized prostitution around them remains at least one step removed so leos can't bust everyone at once.

(Then again, I was surprised at what counted as a valence of removal in T&A clubs in Oregon, a quarter century ago: Not at work, not in the parking lot or otherwise on the premises, and pretend nobody else at work knows what you're doing; I'll swing by and pick up my cut, later. To the other, now that I think about it, we might just tally up yet another sign along the way, telling us where our society was headed. It really was a time of, "just don't say the words and everything is fine".)

Sometimes it sounds more like people are describing a movie. I decided to pass over a lot when I skipped out on the word transsexual.

I routinely see it everyday. Emo guys in girly makeup, getting 30 girls obsessed with him. Or transsexuals getting a bunch of women interested in them. I even see lesbian transsexuals making out with cis girls at the bar. All to do with being hot of course, you can't just put on a dress and expect women to like you. Society is very shallow and judges mainly on looks, but pretends it is this glorious land of compassion and empathy. Ironically it is often hot girls who reject men and claim that men only lust for them, meanwhile these same hot girls only date people nearly as hot as they are. It is a kind of defense mechanism to deflect guilt. It is actually proven that good looking people get lesser criminal sentencing by judges.

You are missing my point altogether. My point is that women want all the things except the man himself.
...

Click to expand...

One, you seem to be basing all of your opinions on society by what you observe in certain bars. That's pretty skewed data.

Two, women and men both want basically the same things in life. There are differences in women and men however.

If a woman is financially stable and attractive she does want the man. She wants one that is financially stable and attractive, in some way, to her. He may be in good shape and not above average in looks and be interesting in other ways, or not.

If the woman doesn't have to be afraid of getting pregnant or of physical violence and can actually pick a guy on what appeals to her, she is likely to enjoy sex just as much as the guy and to enjoy the relationship just as much as well.

Some people are just less comfortable in their own skin and those same people are likely to be less comfortable with sex as well. There are plenty of women (and men) in both categories.

Regarding some of your other comments, viewpoints...people like what they like. Just as you can't talk your ex-girlfriend into changing her mind, you can't look around and decide what other people should prefer. It doesn't work that way.

If a guy isn't very social but is a nice person and as is "deep" but not that popular with women...that's not really their problem. Being socially awkward isn't likely to be attractive to many women and why should it be?

At the personal level, what is "wrong" with society is likely to be more of a personal problem. If we think the problem is with society and not with me, it's likely to be more of a problem with me.

yes and no
though i missed a better lead in to the double negative.(my lack of literation)
i was referring to supposed self acclaimed "people who dont openly object to homosexuality" until they see 2 men making-out and then claim that "making-out" is equal to sex and try and overtly sexualise them not because of "making-out" but because of their own bigotry, bias, baggage & sexual problems where they cant see the humans, and all they can see is 2 men having sex in front of them (when those 2 men are just making-out).

yes and no
though i missed a better lead in to the double negative.(my lack of literation)
i was referring to supposed self acclaimed "people who dont openly object to homosexuality" until they see 2 men making-out and then claim that "making-out" is equal to sex and try and overtly sexualise them not because of "making-out" but because of their own bigotry, bias, baggage & sexual problems where they cant see the humans, and all they can see is 2 men having sex in front of them (when those 2 men are just making-out).

i find the psychology of it is repulsive as pre WWII nazi socialism

Click to expand...

There were many gay nazis, so that is your onus to feel that way. But it seems absurd and nihilistic to compare the nazi killing of gays to some guy who feels repulsed over 2 men kissing at a bar.
It seems more nazish what you are doing, do you know the foundation of Nazism is being repulsed by people different than you? So if you are repulsed by someone else's psychology, who is in turned repulsed by someone else's psychology, that is on the same level. If someone is repulsed by kissing so beit, that is their natural reflex.

For many years I was repulsed by heterosexual kissing, and could only tolerate lesbian kissing. But the nazis of society eventually brainwashed me into heterosexual kissing acceptance. If someone is repulsed by dudes kissing so be it, it is only a matter of taste. As long as they dont physically assault gays or pass anti-gay legislation they should be free to have their own preferences, many people are repulsed by the male form, more so when it is mutliplied in on itself double.

At the personal level, what is "wrong" with society is likely to be more of a personal problem. If we think the problem is with society and not with me, it's likely to be more of a problem with me.

Click to expand...

Sounds like argument of cis acceptance, those that challenge the gender dogma are the "problem", and not the gender dogma itself.
Second what you are saying is again a fallacy and disproved numerously, easiest with Godwin's law.
If a jew in germany says, there is something wrong with society, does that automatically mean the jew has a problem with himself or is delusional?
What you are saying is in essence spiritually similar to nazi philosophy.

Fifteen: It is easy enough to say you don't understand women, but it is also clear you don't really understand men, either.

Try it this way: It can be tricky, because a lot of it just has to do with people. There are times when differences like men and women can be very important, but at some point it doesn't seem so much to expect that a difference be of genuine importance. You're not wrong that "he is not in love", but classism itself is a human thing and a man need not be gay to not fall in love with a woman you think is hot.

Sixteen: Oh, well, yes, some things we cannot fail to notice when it is put right before us as such.

Seventeen: This is why. No, really, it's like, "Huh?" except nobody really wants to know what you think you mean.

Eighteen: Because redpilling is scientific.

Nineteen: One part of a solution would be for men to learn some manner of useful intimacy. If having sex with men wasn't so demonstrably inherently dangerous, then maybe things would be different. And, again, it's really, really important to be able to discern certain differences.

Twenty: Once again, this is why.

You make a certain point: I should say, identifying incels need to get personalities worth knowing. You're aware the word was coined by a woman, right? Describing herself? She's appalled by what it's become. And that's the thing; most incels proper wouldn't use the word. Try relying on deep and interesting personality, instead; see point eight above.

Twenty-one: Again, listening to a man talk like you post just isn't going to attract the women who meet your standards.

Twenty-two: No. This one's on heterosexual men.

Click to expand...

Much of the usual nonsense, fluff and sidestepping some of the core issues, to be expected. I shall get back to you in a moment.

1. No idea what this has to do with anything, I know the thread was about makeup but it wasn't so much about makeup tips.
Second you then allude that a woman does not wish to discuss a man's dick, alluding to a society where women are not sexually attracted to most men, which proves one of my core points in the first place.

2. How do you know what the transsexual had to talk about? They may have been very boring. (Let me know when you want to do logic or just continue the table-talk thing like the View, or Oprah, etc. chewing the fat, etc.)

3. The bar was actually very boring, and empty. Noone went in it, because the only way to get any action was to be a hot girl (or a male who turned into a hot girl.) It kind of loses the fun when you realize you are not wanted due to a random body you had no choice being born into.

4. Sure it helps. Just like how fat, ugly chicks can get a date eventually, if they just play their cards right. Just like how an unnattractive female, can seduce a man if she does the moves just right and has enough "confidence." Can't say you're exactly wrong about this particular point.

5. Can't say your post is wrong about this point, but what are you barkin' at me for? I'm a minority figure. I had no power over these men. And my post never exclusively blamed women for this mess of America. I have nothing but contempt and resentment for the powers that be, most of which coincidentally happen to be male.

6. Obviously rejection has to happen, even in polygamy you can only have so many friends before you get over-burdened with people. But my point was, its manipulative hypocrisy when she tries to take the moral hi-ground. When she only dates hot guys, but then criticizes males for wanting to date her because she is hot.

7. I think you misinterpreted what was said. I meant that it was an evolutionary reflex that of moral hypocrisy, to shame others for the same crimes you are guilty of, it is an evolutionary thing that many people do.

8. "To wit, all else being equal, the prospect of spending every day listening to a man talk like you post just isn't going to bring women to swoon after you. Indeed, at this point, you're essentially dooming yourself by presenting a specifically unpalatable prospect."
Well isn't that the thing of men of this day. Nod your head to whatever a woman says or else you might lose the relationship. As part of some ancient retribution or role reversal to get back at them for the crimes of their ancestors.
My dad had to suffer that too, and so it seems, so do I. He has to obey whatever inanities that my mom forces him to accept, even has to obey her rules, she is boss. You seem same way, because I criticize the feminist status quo or "powers that be", you state, what woman would want to tolerate such defiance as that?

And its always focused on the females's perspective too. What about my perspective? Why would I want to marry a woman who talks like you do honestly? What about my perspective? To be honest the way you talk irritates me greatly.

Third, most of the women I meet are really boring to talk to, yet some how the onus always falls on the male, the male is never good enough, must always impress, the male has to strive for interesting conversation meanwhile the female simply can be as generic and uninteresting as it gets, and its always the fault the male is not good enough, meanwhile most of the women I meet are very boring and generic and I am doing them a favor, except I'm not you know why? Because physical, attraction, females are inherently physically attractive and so they are inherently more valuable to males and society and that is the advantage they possess, even the fat, uglies can go on fetlife put on some makeup and get a legion of followers catering to their every need.

Nine: Fallacy. Obvious dating would imply sexual contact, unless someone was some prude or asexual who just wanted to not be lonely. Men obviously would be looking for sexual prospects in a date. Although I actually concede my argument of 9, even if the world was fat ugly chicks they would still be more sought after than most males.

Ten: Mixed on this. Like I said earlier I think many men are idiots. If a man is married to a rich girl he should be grateful and not bitch and moan. However I think the sane men are mostly worried about being discarded as useless as the social norms imply men have no use for women except for a paycheck.

11: Wasn't talking about sex positions or dom and sub, I was talking about the act itself. Obviously men are the ones who buy prostitutes because men are generally rejected and unwanted by most women not the other way around. If it was the other way around then women would be paying and begging men for sex.

12. Another nonsensical, flabby jab of yours most likely due to an inept misinterpretation. In the real world when you live with someone you have certain consideration, mainly how much some one will cost in terms of room and board, and how much do you enjoy that person to pay for their room and board. Of course feel free to misinterpret what I was saying and turn it into some twisted feminist fantasy.

13. To wit, refer to 12.

14. More nonsense, refer to 12.

15. Logically malformed argument. I said OR not AND, a different logical operator. I said fall in love OR be attracted in any real sense. OF COURSE people dont automatically fall in love with hotties, but they are usually attracted (that is unless they are homosexual or asexuals etc.)
Let me know when you want to get logical, or just talk-show it like on the news or jimmy fallon of the lateshow.

16. ...

17. Not sure what you mean, but it sounds like nonsense. Repeating the facts, makeup can hide certain forms of ugliness. Don't know if you are debating this, or what you are saying exactly.

18. Classic fallacy of poisoning the well, whether or not he is aligned with a group is irrelevant on whether or not his data is valid. Again if a nazi cures cancer that does not mean the cure does not actually cure cancer.
If a redpiller conducts and experiment and reports the data, that does not falsify the data, except of course in your mind it does.

19. Such is the shitshow of the wilds. Life sucks for hyenas as it does the day of pregnancy for a human female. As for the danger to men, no men will not have to suffer the day of pregnancy however they will have to suffer torments of sexual frustration and suicidal feelings of worthlessness and despair. As what is to be done to fix these ailments, science as always. Someday there will be painless pregnancies and a cure for period pain, as so there will also be a paradise for male sexuality and they will never have to endure the endless angst of loneliness and the torment of feeling like they are worthless scum.

21. Most women do not meet my standards (not just physically, but personality wise as well.) However the dating game is heavily stacked against me for two reasons, mainly because I am male and because I am born in America, so I just have to settle.

22. Nope its also to blame on gays, heterosexuals, the whole human race actually and any woman who defends and espouses religion, unreasonable traditionalist values, gender norms dogma, etc. But feel free to live in your land of binary "us vs. them" thought and feminist man-blaming delusion, yes men are to blame but not all, women are to blame but not all, this is commonly known and almost a law of the universe.

Sounds like argument of cis acceptance, those that challenge the gender dogma are the "problem", and not the gender dogma itself.
Second what you are saying is again a fallacy and disproved numerously, easiest with Godwin's law.
If a jew in germany says, there is something wrong with society, does that automatically mean the jew has a problem with himself or is delusional?
What you are saying is in essence spiritually similar to nazi philosophy.

Better to be full of shit than full of nothing.

Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that if you hate everyone in the world, the problem is more likely to be with you (for example). That's not to say that society is right and that we should never question it.

If a guy thinks that girls don't like him even though he is a great guy and better than the guys those girls seem to be attracted to...the issue isn't with "those girls".

No, I'm saying that if you hate everyone in the world, the problem is more likely to be with you (for example). That's not to say that society is right and that we should never question it.

If a guy thinks that girls don't like him even though he is a great guy and better than the guys those girls seem to be attracted to...the issue isn't with "those girls".

Click to expand...

Where is the proof in this? There is no proof in this at all. You are just saying things.

So if a bunch of jocky frat girls date the resident jockbag over a quiet philosopher type, apparently there is something wrong with quiet philosopher types because they are less popular with the clique frat girls than jockbaggy jock types.